The High Court refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT) decision that affirmed a recommendation not to grant her refugee status. Ms Justice Clark delivered judgment on 25 February 2009.
The applicant, identified in the judgment only as E. F. I., said she was from Benin City, Nigeria, and had been taken to Zamfara as a teenager by a relative she called “Madam”. She said Madam forced her into prostitution and that she was tried by a Sharia court, convicted of fornication or adultery and sentenced to death by stoning. She sought asylum in Ireland, fearing persecution if returned.
The Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner rejected her claim after making adverse credibility findings. The RAT dismissed her appeal following an oral hearing. Its concerns included the credibility of her account and the authenticity of a purported conviction document. The tribunal also considered country of origin information (COI) about whether non-Muslims could be subjected to Sharia law, the risk from Madam, and whether the applicant could return to southern Nigeria.
In the High Court, the applicant argued that the RAT had selectively relied on COI and failed to consider four earlier RAT decisions concerning young victims of sexual exploitation and state protection. The respondents said the earlier cases differed because the applicant had a father and uncle in Nigeria, and because her account did not describe trafficking to Ireland for prostitution.
Justice Clark found no real dispute in the COI before her: the reports relied on by the applicant did not address Zamfara, and the court considered the material supporting the tribunal’s assessment more authoritative. The judge said the applicant’s fear of a Sharia sentence was not objectively well founded on the material, and noted that the tribunal had also doubted whether she had been tried and convicted at all. The tribunal had further found that she had left Zamfara and returned to Benin City, where secular common law applied, and that other Nigerian states would not return her to face a Sharia sentence.
The court accepted that it would have been preferable for the tribunal member to explain the weight given to the applicant’s sources, but held that the omission did not establish substantial grounds for judicial review at the leave stage. It also found material differences between the earlier RAT cases and the applicant’s circumstances, including her family connections, and refused leave.
Justice Clark nevertheless criticised the tribunal’s use of formulaic language to dismiss earlier RAT decisions, saying it appeared to ignore the importance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Atanasov. As the applicant was unsuccessful, the court made no order for costs against her.